Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION (Read 1360669 times)

philw1776 · « **Reply #1900 on:** 12/30/2015 05:06 pm »

Try this site for all F9 launches

http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=f6a20bfa-2802-480d-b66f-282aba6a7efe&code=OG22

ugordan · « **Reply #1901 on:** 12/30/2015 05:15 pm »

Quote from: philw1776 on 12/30/2015 05:06 pm

Try this site for all F9 launches

http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=f6a20bfa-2802-480d-b66f-282aba6a7efe&code=OG22

That is impressive, but as far as I can see those are just simulations, not actual data. Unless SES-9 and Jason-3 already launched.

edit: added trajectory plot with 1 minute tick marks:

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #1902 on:** 12/31/2015 02:43 am »

That's great work ugordan! Would it be possible to obtain an inertial speed versus time plot?

Roy_H · « **Reply #1903 on:** 12/31/2015 11:39 am »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/31/2015 02:43 am

That's great work ugordan! Would it be possible to obtain an inertial speed versus time plot?

Excuse my ignorance, but he already has a speed vs time plot. What is the difference for "inertial" speed. And please add a definition. Thanks.

baldusi · « **Reply #1904 on:** 12/31/2015 03:19 pm »

Quote from: Roy_H on 12/31/2015 11:39 am

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/31/2015 02:43 am
That's great work ugordan! Would it be possible to obtain an inertial speed versus time plot?

Excuse my ignorance, but he already has a speed vs time plot. What is the difference for "inertial" speed. And please add a definition. Thanks.

Inertial speed means discounting the rotation of the Earth.

cscott · « **Reply #1905 on:** 12/31/2015 04:08 pm »

I assume that's what's been already been plotted, since the graphs start at speed=0.

EDIT: ah, when you said "discounting" you really meant "accounting for and including".

baldusi · « **Reply #1906 on:** 12/31/2015 05:28 pm »

If it was inertial it would have started at some 350m/s or so from the rotation of the Earth at the Cape.

Arb · « **Reply #1907 on:** 12/31/2015 07:44 pm »

A day before launch and some days after LRR Elon delayed the flight by 24 hours for a 10% improvement in the chance of landing success. This led to some discussion. A later thread on SpaceX Systems Engineering contains a relevant slide showing FRR as a continuous process from WDR to Launch.

The slide also suggests that WDR and static fires will always be part of their process.

Interesting stuff.

Edit: Clarification

Kabloona · « **Reply #1908 on:** 12/31/2015 08:37 pm »

Quote

The slide also suggests that WDR and static fires will always be part of their process.

I'd be careful about saying "always." That slide was from 2012, and since then they've combined WDR into the static fire, so there aren't going to be any more standalone WDR's.

Arb · « **Reply #1909 on:** 12/31/2015 09:50 pm »

Quote from: Kabloona on 12/31/2015 08:37 pm

Quote
The slide also suggests that WDR and static fires will always be part of their process.
I'd be careful about saying "always." That slide was from 2012, and since then they've combined WDR into the static fire, so there aren't going to be any more standalone WDR's.

And if they achieve their long-term goal of:

Quote from: SpaceX Tooling Manager (Travel Team) job advert - http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/7829

[a] fully automated launch system capable of rolling the vehicle to the pad, raising it to position, fueling, and executing a full launch sequence in a single hour

then there likely won't be time for a static fire. But for now they still do both, albeit combined.

_{Edit: Quote formatting.}

AJW · « **Reply #1910 on:** 12/31/2015 11:43 pm »

Is it your gamma boost, or did somebody get a bath?

oiorionsbelt · « **Reply #1911 on:** 12/31/2015 11:47 pm »

Screen shot of the Instagram picture

docmordrid · « **Reply #1912 on:** 12/31/2015 11:48 pm »

Only boosted it a small amount for the shadows. Looks like it's had a wash.

Jdeshetler · « **Reply #1913 on:** 01/01/2016 12:32 am »

After looking at Elon's photo of "used" F9 where there is lots of chipped and bubbled painted surfaces which is only superficial.

The Space Shuttle saved 600 lbs after stopping painting the white latex paint on the 3rd exterior tank. So why not no more white paint on F9 and it might save 200 to 300 lbs plus no more chipped paints to check out for loose flakes....

pathfinder_01 · « **Reply #1914 on:** 01/01/2016 12:54 am »

Quote from: Jdeshetler on 01/01/2016 12:32 am

After looking at Elon's photo of "used" F9 where there is lots of chipped and bubbled painted surfaces which is only superficial.

The Space Shuttle saved 600 lbs after stopping painting the white latex paint on the 3rd exterior tank. So why not no more white paint on F9 and it might save 200 to 300 lbs plus no more chipped paints to check out for loose flakes....

The white paint on the Shuttle was to help keeping the tank at the proper temperature. It was simply discovered that it was not needed and removing it improved performance and saved money. Likewise Elon might have to evaluate that first.

sdsds · « **Reply #1915 on:** 01/01/2016 01:27 am »

You might ask, "Why do the static fire test?" I think the answer is that otherwise much may have happened since you last saw the engines' shutdown transient behavior.

NovaSilisko · « **Reply #1916 on:** 01/01/2016 01:45 am »

I don't think Musk would ever go for an unpainted Falcon 9. He refused to let Grasshopper be shown until it was painted and given the SpaceX logo, IIRC - whereas the engineers were just going to fly it "naked".

Jdeshetler · « **Reply #1917 on:** 01/01/2016 01:59 am »

Anodized the aluminum surface is one way of adding color and some protection however white is the only color can't be applied thru this procedure.....

rcoppola · « **Reply #1918 on:** 01/01/2016 02:00 am »

What are these cracks/peels on the grid fins?

Kabloona · « **Reply #1919 on:** 01/01/2016 02:49 am »

Quote from: rcoppola on 01/01/2016 02:00 am

What are these cracks/peels on the grid fins?

Probably a thin layer of thermal protection (SPAM?) that peeled off.